Obama's First 100 days

[blackshoe]

Stratfor posted an analysis of Obama's first 100 days in office today. Interesting reading.

[Winstonm]

This quote is from an article by Andrew J. Bacevich and it expresses exactly my sentiments about what Obama has done and what I expect him to do.

 

THE HISTORY of American liberalism is one of promoting substantively modest if superficially radical reforms in order to refurbish and sustain the status quo. From Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal to Bill Clinton's New Covenant, liberals have specialized in jettisoning the redundant to preserve what they see as essential. In this sense, modern liberalism's great achievement has been to deflect or neutralize calls for more fundamental change - a judgment that applies to President Obama, especially on national security.

 

There has not been nor will there ever be fundamental change.

[blackshoe]

Never is a long time.

[jdonn]

As my mom would say, not with that attitude.

[y66]

There has not been nor will there ever be fundamental change.

Wanna bet?

 

According to the Census Bureau, the number of Americans without health insurance at the end of 2007 was 15.3 percent. Would cutting this number in half before Obama leaves office qualify as a fundamental change in your book?

[Lobowolf]

I wonder what their definition of "American" is.

[Winstonm]

There has not been nor will there ever be fundamental change.

Wanna bet?

 

According to the Census Bureau, the number of Americans without health insurance at the end of 2007 was 15.3 percent. Would cutting this number in half before Obama leaves office qualify as a fundamental change in your book?

No, it would not.

 

In my book, fundamental change requires a complete retooling, a new way of viewing things and solving problems.

 

I do not believe there is a politician alive today who would have the cajones to attempt any fundamental changes.

 

As for healthcare, a fundamental change would be a total abandonment of the current system and complete adoption of something like the French or Canadien systems - finding a way to get health insurance to 20 million more people under the same or a similar system is not fundamental change - sorry.

[jdonn]

As for healthcare, a fundamental change would be a total abandonment of the current system and complete adoption of something like the French or Canadien systems - finding a way to get health insurance to 20 million more people under the same or a similar system is not fundamental change - sorry.

Honestly, who cares what you call it? 20 million more people with health insurance is a very good thing!!

[awm]

The policy on torture and detainees seems to be a pretty major change. Obama moved pretty quickly on this, and it's a big shift. Whether it has the desired effect of improving the world's perception of the United States will take time to tell.

 

There also seems to be a pretty big shift on the policy towards Cuba, as Obama is essentially lifting the embargo. That is a policy that's been in place for decades.

 

The policy towards science and technology is potentially a dramatic shift as well. The increase in funding for scientific research is really substantial. The article's author seems to write this off as "different funding priorities" between the parties, but I think the opinion that government money should drive scientific research is pretty far from the last administration's view that scientific research will be funded by business as long as the government keeps cutting corporate taxes and regulations.

 

As for the other policy issues, it's hard to switch policies overnight. It will take time for new approaches to take root -- even if Obama wanted to pull all troops out of Iraq tomorrow, it's simply not logistically possible to do that. And the bitterness in Europe towards the United States is not going to totally evaporate overnight just because we have a new president.

[Gerben42]

About foreign affairs: Germany is going into an election year, so the government will not have high priority listening to Obama's suggestions.

 

1. Afghanistan. The public wants out, never mind what Obama wants.

 

2. More stimulus packages: The public doesn't want any, they want less national debt, never mind what Obama wants.

 

3. Banking: People do NOT want anyone to bail out any banks, the government has been criticized massively for helping the HRS. Again, since it's an election year, the German government would be messing up their chances for reelection if they would listen to Obama.

[Aberlour10]

Another aspect, Obama's administration seems not to care in it current economic moves about the danger of rising inflation. Europeans, especially germans hate inflation, if it will swap from the USA to Europe, Obamas popularity here will lower rapidly, for sure.

 

Robert

[mike777]

Another aspect, Obama's administration seems not to care in it current economic moves about the danger of rising inflation. Europeans, especially germans hate inflation, if it will swap from the USA to Europe, Obamas popularity here will lower rapidly, for sure.

 

Robert

If there is inflation in the future the hope is we can export it to the rest of the world. In other words borrow money now from Europe and China and repay with inflated American Dollars if inflation in the future.

 

As for places such as Pakistan, hopefully Europe can take the lead there with their military, should the need arise.

 

In other words with this new spirit of cooperation, lets have Europe take the lead so we can learn.

 

As for the health care debate it would be helpful to know how a single payer system works in fact in Europe and Canada rather than in theory in regards to two issues:

1) rationing

2) technology and innovation in health care.

[Winstonm]

As for healthcare, a fundamental change would be a total abandonment of the current system and complete adoption of something like the French or Canadien systems - finding a way to get health insurance to 20 million more people under the same or a similar system is not fundamental change - sorry.

Honestly, who cares what you call it? 20 million more people with health insurance is a very good thing!!

I agree it would be a good thing. I was asked, though, about fundamental change.

[jdonn]

Yes I see that, you were asked about it because you brought it up. My point is, who cares? I'd rather say millions more are insured than that we copied the system of [insert country here]. If we were to take on another system I would want to do so because it would work the best, not because it would be the most different from whatever we have now. Likewise for probably any major issue. It's rightfully and legally attained results that matter, not how you spin the method.

[luke warm]

I wonder what their definition of "American" is.

i bet you thought i'd bite at that, eh? :P

[Lobowolf]

I wonder what their definition of "American" is.

i bet you thought i'd bite at that, eh? :P

Nope, actually. As near as I can tell, they mean "people residing in America," which probably overstates the case by at least 10 million.

[cherdanno]

I wonder what their definition of "American" is.

i bet you thought i'd bite at that, eh? :P

Nope, actually. As near as I can tell, they mean "people residing in America," which probably overstates the case by at least 10 million.

Why?

[Lobowolf]

Because I believe the common parlance default definition that most people use for "American" doesn't refer to all people residing in the country (although I recognize that alternate definitions exist).

[cherdanno]

Because I believe the common parlance default definition that most people use for "American" doesn't refer to all people residing in the country (although I recognize that alternate definitions exist).

This is not a fight about words. Do you think Obama's goal should be to provide health care for

- all US citizens,

- all permanent residents, or

- all current (permanent or non-permanent) residents?

[Lobowolf]

Because I believe the common parlance default definition that most people use for "American" doesn't refer to all people residing in the country (although I recognize that alternate definitions exist).

This is not a fight about words. Do you think Obama's goal should be to provide health care for

- all US citizens,

- all permanent residents, or

- all current (permanent or non-permanent) residents?

That's a separate question. As it's one that I do have an opinion on, I'll be happy to answer it, but as a starting point, it's misleading to claim "X number of Americans don't have health insurance" when X includes millions of residents who are not citizens (or even legal residents).

 

I don't know that Obama's goal should be to provide health care for "all" <anything>, because I'm not sure what cure would be better than the disease (no pun intended). However, given that he wants to provide health care for "all Americans," I don't think that should include non-legal residents. I'm not sure whether it should include non-citizens who are legal residents.

 

In more broad terms, I don't believe that a government owes the same duty to its non-legal residents that it does to its citizens. I also believe that to the extent that a government wants to have immigration laws, it's generally not good policy to incentivize people to break those laws.

[mike777]

One number I see popping up alot in the media is that about 45 million Americans are not covered by health insurance in 2009.

 

I do wonder if we go to some version of a single payer system if that will crowd out what we call private health insurance to the point it no longer can compete.

If so I wonder whatever surviving system of health care will effect:

1) rationing

2) technology and innovation in health care.

 

As for illegals it is my understanding that currently they are entitled to free medical care at least to the point of stabilization in the USA at which point they may or may not be deported back to their home country. Not sure what the rule is in Europe, Mexico, Africa, South America and Asia.

[blackshoe]

As I understand it, it would be severely unethical for a member of the medical profession, and by extension for an organization composed of such members (for example, a hospital) to deny urgent medical care to anyone on the grounds of inability to pay. And that's independent of what the law may say.

 

OTOH, my understanding of medical ethics comes from my father's teachings (he was a cardiologist) and he's been retired for over 20 years. Maybe things have changed.